Hillary Clinton

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I thank the Senator from West Virginia for his courtesy. By far beyond that, I thank him for his leadership and his eloquence and his passion and commitment to this body and to our Constitution. I join with the remarks by both the Senators from Michigan and Maryland, expressing our appreciation for the way in which he has waged this battle on behalf of his convictions. It is a lesson to us all. Today, Mr. President, we are asked whether to give the President of the United States authority to use force in Iraq should diplomatic efforts fail to dismantle Saddam Hussein's chemical and biological weapons and his nuclear program. I am honored to represent nearly 19 million New Yorkers, a thoughtful democracy of voices and opinions who make themselves heard on the great issues of our day, especially this one. Many have contacted my office about this resolution, both in support of and in opposition to it. I am grateful to all who have expressed an opinion. I also greatly respect the differing opinions within this body. The debate they engender will aid our search for a wise, effective policy. Therefore, on no account should dissent be discouraged or disparaged. It is central to our freedom and to our progress, for on more than one occasion history has proven our great dissenters to be right. I believe the facts that have brought us to this fateful vote are not in doubt. Saddam Hussein is a tyrant who has tortured and killed his own people, even his own family members, to maintain his iron grip on power. He used chemical weapons on Iraqi Kurds and on Iranians, killing over 20,000 people. Unfortunately, during the 1980s, while he engaged in such horrific activity, he enjoyed the support of the American Government because he had oil and was seen as a counterweight to the Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran. In 1991, Saddam Hussein invaded and occupied Kuwait, losing the support of the United States. The first President Bush assembled a global coalition, including many Arab States, and threw Saddam out after 43 days of bombing and hundreds of hours of ground operations. The United States led the coalition, then withdrew, leaving the Kurds and the Shiites, who had risen against Saddam Hussein at our urging, to Saddam's revenge. As a condition for ending the conflict, the United Nations imposed a number of requirements on Iraq, among them disarmament of all weapons of mass destruction, stocks used to make such weapons, and laboratories necessary to do the work. Saddam Hussein agreed and an inspection system was set up to ensure compliance. Though he repeatedly lied, delayed, and obstructed the inspectors' work, the inspectors found and destroyed far more weapons of mass destruction capability than were destroyed in the gulf war, including thousands of chemical weapons, large volumes of chemical and biological stocks, a number of missiles and warheads, a major lab equipped to produce anthrax and other bioweapons, as well as substantial nuclear facilities. In 1998, Saddam Hussein pressured the United Nations to lift the sanctions by threatening to stop all cooperation with the inspectors. In an attempt to resolve the situation, the U.N., unwisely in my view, agreed to put limits on inspections of designated sovereign sites, including the so-called Presidential palaces--which in reality were huge compounds, well suited to hold weapons labs, stocks, and records which Saddam Hussein was required by U.N. resolution to turn over. When Saddam blocked the inspection process, the inspectors left. As a result, President Clinton, with the British and others, ordered an intensive 4-day air assault, Operation Desert Fox, on known and suspected weapons of mass destruction sites and other military targets. In 1998, the United States also changed its underlying policy toward Iraq from containment to regime change and began to examine options to effect such a change, including support for Iraqi opposition leaders within the country and abroad. In the 4 years since the inspectors, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al-Qaida members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capability to wage biological and chemical warfare and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East which, as we know all too well, affects American security. This much is undisputed. The open questions are: What should we do about it? How, when, and with whom? Some people favor attacking Saddam Hussein now, with any allies we can muster, in the belief that one more round of weapons inspections would not produce the required disarmament and that deposing Saddam would be a positive good for the Iraqi people and would create the possibility of a secular, democratic state in the Middle East, one which could, perhaps, move the entire region toward democratic reform. This view has appeal to some because it would assure disarmament; because it would right old wrongs after our abandonment of the Shiites and Kurds in 1991 and our support for Saddam Hussein in the 1980s when he was using chemical weapons and terrorizing his people; and because it could give the Iraqi people a chance to build a future in freedom. However, this course is fraught with danger. We and our NATO allies did not depose Mr. Milosevic, who was responsible for more than a quarter of million people being killed in the 1990s. Instead, by stopping his aggression in Bosnia and Kosovo, and keeping the tough sanctions, we created the conditions in which his own people threw him out and led to his being in the dock and being tried for war crimes as we speak. If we were to attack Iraq now, alone or with few allies, it would set a precedent that could come back to haunt us. In recent days, Russia has talked of an invasion of Georgia to attack Chechen rebels. India has mentioned the possibility of a preemptive strike on Pakistan. What if China should perceive a threat from Taiwan? So, for all its appeal, a unilateral attack, while it cannot be ruled out, is not a good option. Others argue that we should work through the United Nations and should only resort to force if and when the United Nations Security Council approves it. This too has great appeal for different reasons. The United Nations deserves our support. Whenever possible we should work through it and strengthen it, for it enables the world to share the risks and burdens of global security and when it acts, it confers a legitimacy that increases the likelihood of long-term success. The United Nations can lead the world into a new era of global cooperation. And the United States should support that goal. But there are problems with this approach as well. The United Nations is an organization that is still growing and maturing. It often lacks the cohesion to enforce its own mandates. And when Security Council members use the veto on occasion for reasons of narrow national interest, it cannot act. In Kosovo, the Russians did not approve the NATO military action because of political, ethnic, and religious ties to the Serbs. The United States, therefore, could not obtain a Security Council resolution in favor of the action necessary to stop the dislocation and ethnic cleansing of more than a million Kosovar Albanians. However, most of the world was with us because there was a genuine emergency with thousands dead and a million more driven from their homes. As soon as the American-led conflict was over, Russia joined the peacekeeping effort that is still underway. In the case of Iraq, recent comments indicate that one or two Security Council members might never approve forces against Saddam Hussein until he has actually used chemical, biological, or God forbid, nuclear weapons. So, the question is how do we do our best to both diffuse the threat Saddam Hussein poses to his people, the region, including Israel, and the United States, and at the same time, work to maximize our international support and strengthen the United Nations. While there is no perfect approach to this thorny dilemma, and while people of good faith and high intelligence can reach diametrically opposing conclusions, I believe the best course is to go to the United Nations for a strong resolution that scraps the 1998 restrictions on inspections and calls for complete, unlimited inspections, with cooperation expected and demanded from Iraq. I know the administration wants more, including an explicit authorization to use force, but we may not be able to secure that now, perhaps even later. If we get a clear requirement for unfettered inspections, I believe the authority to use force to enforce that mandate is inherent in the original 1991 United Nations resolutions, as President Clinton recognized when he launched Operation Desert Fox in 1998. If we get the resolution the President seeks, and Saddam complies, disarmament can proceed and the threat can be eliminated. Regime change will, of course, take longer but we must still work for it, nurturing all reasonable forces of opposition. If we get the resolution and Saddam does not comply, we can attack him with far more support and legitimacy than we would have otherwise. If we try and fail to get a resolution that simply calls for Saddam's compliance with unlimited inspections, those who oppose even that will be in an indefensible position. And, we will still have more support and legitimacy than if we insist now on a resolution that includes authorizing military action and other requirements giving other nations superficially legitimate reasons to oppose Security Council action. They will say, we never wanted a resolution at all and that we only support the U.N. when it does exactly want we want. I believe international support and legitimacy are crucial. After shots are fired and bombs are dropped, not all consequences are predictable. While the military outcome is not in doubt, should we put troops on the ground, there is still the matter of Saddam Hussein's biological and chemical weapons. Today he has maximum incentive not to use them or give them away. If he did either, the world would demand his immediate removal. Once the battle is joined, with the outcome certain, he will have maximum incentive to use weapons of mass destruction and give what he can't use to terrorists who can torment us with them long after he is gone. We cannot be paralyzed by this possibility, but we would be foolish to ignore it. According to recent reports, the CIA agrees with this analysis. A world united in sharing the risk at least would make this occurrence less likely and more bearable and would be far more likely to share the considerable burden of rebuilding a secure and peaceful post-Saddam Iraq. President Bush's speech in Cincinnati and the changes in policy that have come forth from the administration since they first began broaching this issue some weeks ago have made my vote easier. Even though the resolution before the Senate is not as strong as I would like in requiring the diplomatic route first and placing highest priority on a simple, clear requirement for unlimited inspections, I take the President at his word that he will try hard to pass a United Nations resolution and seek to avoid war, if possible. Because bipartisan support for this resolution makes success in the United Nations more likely and war less likely, and because a good faith effort by the United States, even if it fails, will bring more allies and legitimacy to our cause, I have concluded, after careful and serious consideration, that a vote for the resolution best serves the security of our Nation. If we were to defeat this resolution or pass it with only a few Democrats, I am concerned that those who want to pretend this problem will go way with delay will oppose any United Nations resolution calling for unrestricted inspections. This is a difficult vote. This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make. Any vote that may lead to war should be hard, but I cast it with conviction. Perhaps my decision is influenced by my 8 years of experience on the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue in the White House watching my husband deal with serious challenges to our Nation. I want this President, or any future President, to be in the strongest possible position to lead our country in the United Nations or in war. Secondly, I want to ensure that Saddam Hussein makes no mistake about our national unity and support for the President's efforts to wage America's war against terrorists and weapons of mass destruction. Thirdly, I want the men and women in our Armed Forces to know that if they should be called upon to act against Iraq our country will stand resolutely behind them. My vote is not, however, a vote for any new doctrine of preemption or for unilateralism or for the arrogance of American power or purpose, all of which carry grave dangers for our Nation, the rule of international law, and the peace and security of people throughout the world. Over 11 years have passed since the UN called on Saddam Hussein to rid himself of weapons of mass destruction as a condition of returning to the world community. Time and time again, he has frustrated and denied these conditions. This matter cannot be left hanging forever with consequences we would all live to regret. War can yet be avoided, but our responsibility to global security and the integrity of United Nations resolutions protecting it cannot. I urge the President to spare no effort to secure a clear, unambiguous demand by the United Nations for unlimited inspections. Finally, on another personal note, I come to this decision from the perspective of a Senator from New York who has seen all too closely the consequences of last year's terrible attacks on our Nation. In balancing the risks of action versus inaction, I think New Yorkers, who have gone through the fires of hell, may be more attuned to the risk of not acting. I know I am. So it is with conviction that I support this resolution as being in the best interests of our Nation. A vote for it is not a vote to rush to war; it is a vote that puts awesome responsibility in the hands of our President. And we say to him: Use these powers wisely and as a last resort. And it is a vote that says clearly to Saddam Hussein: This is your last chance; disarm or be disarmed.

Mrs. CLINTON. Twenty minutes.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, today, it is an honor to introduce the Finger Lakes Initiative Act of 2002. The Finger Lakes are the heart of New York. They stretch across most of the State and nurture an endless supply of natural and economic resources. They attract visitors from across the country, and they deserve our support to maintain and strengthen the quality of life in the entire region. The Finger Lakes Region of New York State is a land of rolling hills, beautiful lakes, pastoral firms, and incomparable fish and wildlife resources. A critical environmental resource, the Lakes are also vital to the region's economy, generating a tremendous amount of tourism and commerce. Fishing, boating, hunting, wineries, farmers markets and the arts attract visitors from around the nation to the Finger Lakes region. The Finger Lakes region also includes some of the Northeast's most productive agricultural lands. While Central New York is truly blessed with the environmental, economic, and cultural benefits that the Finger Lakes provide, the health of the Finger Lakes can no longer be taken for granted. Recent reports have confirmed what many residents in New York already know, the Finger Lakes are under environmental stress. In many of the lakes, water quality has suffered. Fluctuating water levels and flooding north of the lakes has also increased. In addition, a significant amount of fish and wildlife habitat is being lost and threats are being posed by the introduction of invasive species. Local, State, and Federal officials have recognized the seriousness of these threats, and have worked to address these concerns. Local stakeholders have joined forces and are working to protect the lakes, developing management plans, implementing best management practices, and doing what they can to protect the resource that is truly their backyard. Yet there is still no comprehensive, regional action plan to address collective environmental protection and economic development goals for the region. In recent years, Congress has recognized that our Nation's environmental resources are best protected on an ecosystem or watershed basis, with the federal government providing funds and expertise to assist with protection efforts that are shaped by State and local interests. This approach has been taken with great success in Chesapeake Bay, the Great Lakes, the Long Island Sound, and the California Bay Delta, just to name a few. Just as the Federal Government has supported these national treasures, it is time for the Finger Lakes to be recognized as a region to be protected and enhanced for the economic and environmental benefit of all who live, work, farm, play, and visit the Finger Lakes. Under the Finger Lakes Initiative Act of 2002, which I am introducing today with Senator Schumer, a new program will be established within the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to protect and enhance the environmental integrity and cultural and economic benefits of the Finger Lakes. The Initiative will assist Finger Lakes stakeholders in achieving their goals for the region through technical, scientific, and financial assistance and coordination of relevant Federal programs. To best serve the interests of the region and build upon the knowledge, expertise, and ongoing efforts of local stakeholders, the legislation establishes an official stakeholder group to aid in developing and implementing the Initiative. The stakeholder group will be comprised of representatives from local businesses, regional planning agencies, academic institutions, homeowners associations, environmental organizations, agricultural interests, economic development interests, the tourism industry, and tribes, as well as representatives of Federal, State, and local governments. This stakeholder group will have three years to develop a comprehensive plan to provide for the protection and enhancement of the environmental integrity and the social and economic benefits of the Finger Lakes. The plan will be made available for public review and comment, including a number of public meetings throughout the Finger Lakes region. Once approved by the EPA Administrator, with the concurrence of the Governor, the plan will become the blueprint for federally supported activities in the region. Furthermore, there will be an interdisciplinary research and education program established as part of the Finger Lakes Initiative, including $5 million in federal support authorized for a Finger Lakes Institute, such as the Institute that was recently announced at the Hobart and William Smith Colleges in Geneva, NY. Overall, the bill authorizes $50 million in federal support over five years for efforts to protect and enhance the environmental, economic and cultural benefits of the Finger Lakes. And to ensure proper involvement and coordination among all federal agencies in addressing the needs and challenges in the Finger Lakes, appropriate financial, technical, and scientific assistance will be provided for the Finger Lakes Initiative by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Geological Survey, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Park Service, the U.S. Department of Agricultural, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Economic Development Administration, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. For decades, the Finger Lakes region has held its own in the world. The lakes, the farms, the towns, the wildlife, and the recreational opportunities have all pulled people toward this part of the State. I, myself, was drawn there in August and spent time in Auburn, Seneca Falls, Hammondsport, and Geneva. Seeing the potential of this region, I can just imagine the possibilities when we finally reach out to the Finger Lakes Region--when we finally provide this region with the resources and the attention and the planning it deserves. The possibilities are endless. There is room in our Nation for another natural wonder, the Finger Lakes Region of New York State.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today in support of this resolution to designate next week as National 4-H Youth Development Program Week. 4-H is a wonderful organization that promotes volunteerism and leadership among this country's youth. With the participation of over 415,000 youth in New York State, 4-H is a wonderful organization devoted to enhancing the citizenship, leadership, and entrepreneurial abilities of youth. 4-H educates the young people in our country by giving them the opportunity to learn by doing. 4-H empowers our youth in their local communities, and encourages them to be active and to give back to their community. In New York State, there are many 4-H clubs that are doing incredible things to help educate and shape our youth. In New York City young people learn more about science through the education programs of 4-H. In the middle of an urban area, they can learn about agriculture and the source of their food through horticulture and hydroponics projects. In Syracuse 4-Hers are participating in an Urban Delight program where young people participate in a farmers' market. They learn about where their food comes from and develop their entrepreneurial skills as vendors at the market. The Genesse County 4-H offers a Government internship program. Young people are paired with county legislators to learn more about local government. 4-Hers see first-hand the process of decisionmaking that occurs in their local government. On Long Island, afterschool 4-H programs are enriching the minds of young people through science and technology education. 4-Hers spend time in computer labs, learning about technology. 4-Hers are also participating in a science program thats taken a hands-on approach to learning chemistry by doing projects on topics such as water quality, oil slicks, and clothing fibers. In New York's North Country, 4-H is alive and well. Youth have developed their entrepreneurial skills through operating a fish hatchery. They also enrich their communication skills by choosing a topic of interest and making presentations at local, regional, and State events. 4-H has made a commitment to be present on every military base. In particular, Jefferson County 4-H has partnered with the Army at Fort Drumm to provide educational opportunities to young people there. Members have access to national curriculum to provide them with the materials and information to pursue their interests. 4-H is a strong link between a State academic research institution, Cornell University, and the youth of New York. When West Nile Virus was detected in New York State, 4-Hers working with horses and other equine projects were concerned for the health of their animals. Because of 4- H, information from the researchers at Cornell University was disseminated to these young people to better educate them on the disease and how to care for their animals. 4-H does incredible things for the 415,000 youth involved in New York State. But it also provides incredible opportunities for adults to interact with young people. Over 22,000 adults have volunteered to help guide the young people and make 4-H programs so successful. I congratulate 4-H on 100 years of helping to shape this country's youth in a positive manner. With my colleagues, I am pleased to request that October 6-12 be designated as National 4-H Youth Development Program Week.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise to talk about hard-working Americans, their needs in our current economy, and the kind of obligations we owe to one another. I have the greatest respect for the ranking member on the Finance Committee. Senator Grassley is an extraordinarily effective advocate and Senator on behalf not only of the people from Iowa he represents but on behalf of Americans. Of course, we have a difference of opinion about what is the best thing to do to get the economy going, to start creating jobs, to put people back to work, and to make sure that the economic prospects are bright for our young people. That is an honest disagreement, but there could be no disagreement that we do, unfortunately, at this moment have what is called a jobless recovery. That is half right. I think the jobless part is right. I think the recovery part is a bit of a stretch. Unfortunately, many hard-working Americans, from New York City to Des Moines to San Francisco, have been unemployed through no fault of their own but through the downturn in the economy, through the economic impacts of the disastrous and horrible terrorist attacks we suffered. I think we owe something to these hard-working Americans. Every other Congress, every other administration, has recognized that obligation. When you do what you are supposed to, when you get up, you go to your job, and you do what you are asked to do to get the paycheck at the end of the week to support yourself and your family, that is what we want for all Americans. The goal of our economic policy in this wonderful free enterprise society that we cherish is to create enough jobs so everyone who is willing to work can work. Unfortunately, we now have rising unemployment, and 1.2 million Americans have exhausted the safety net that has always been there for people who lose their jobs. That is called unemployment insurance. Believe me, no one I know wants to be on unemployment insurance instead of having a job. It does not provide enough benefits. It does not take you anywhere. It is the dead end of all dead ends, but it does provide subsistence support for you and your family. I have been talking with so many of the Americans, especially New Yorkers, who are unemployed. That is what they tell me. They have been looking for work. The economy of the 1990s has receded. There are not enough jobs for the people who are looking for work. Many have told me heartbreaking stories of going to job fairs, of walking the streets, of answering every ad they can find, of absolutely making a nuisance of themselves to try to find some job opening to get working again. Unfortunately, there are not enough jobs right now. We have an honest disagreement in this Chamber about the best way to start creating jobs again. It will not surprise my colleagues that I come from the Clinton school of economics. We need a balanced approach. Stimulate the economy, have targeted tax cuts, pay down the debt, and make investments that will lead to our Nation being richer, safer, smarter, and stronger. The administration and my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have a different theory. Evidence does count for something. The evidence is on our side, not their side. Eventually they will get around to recognizing that and we will go back to a sensible economic policy. In the meantime, honest, hard-working Americans should not bear the brunt for bad economic policies. They should not bear the brunt because the administration does not have an economic plan. We need to help them. We have the means to do so. We should act immediately. Around the country the headlines read: ``Prospects for Work Fade with Economy,'' ``Jobless Recovery,'' ``Help is Needed on the Home Front,'' ``The Jobless Need the Helping Hand of Congress and the President.'' In addition to no jobs for honest, hard-working people looking for jobs, the poverty rate has gone back up. For the first time in 8 years, the poverty rate increased by 1.3 million people. For families, that number increased by almost half a million. For the first time since 1991 the median household income dropped by 2.2 percent. The DOW has had its worst September since 1937. The number of Americans who no longer have health insurance has increased by 1.4 million. How much more of a wakeup call do we need to penetrate the fog of ideology that sits over this Capitol? How much more information and evidence do we require to admit we have millions of Americans who are unemployed, on the brink of financial ruin because we are not giving them a helping hand? We can take steps right now to extend unemployment insurance. It may seem like a small step to some who are not unemployed. That is always the problem. We are sitting here with a cushy job, and we hear of people who do not have work, thinking good luck to them. That is inexcusable. Those fortunate enough to have a job to count on during a jobless recovery know there are a lot of people ``there but for the grace of God go us.'' We should be there with a helping hand. It is not right to ignore their plight any longer. Many Americans are exhausting all of their unemployment benefits. That is understandable; we only extended it for 13 weeks. I keep thinking of the contrast between the recession of the early 1990s and this recession. In the early 1990s, former President Bush extended unemployment three times. And then President Clinton extended it twice until the economy began picking up and jobs began to be available again. I don't think we need to look any further than our own history of the past 10 years. When times get tough and people cannot find work because the economy is not creating jobs, that is what unemployment insurance is for. It is not only the right thing to do, it is also smart. It provides a direct stimulus into our economy. Every dollar we spend on unemployment insurance generates $2.15 in our gross domestic product. It puts into the hands of people who will spend that money immediately the means to pay their rent, to buy the food, to buy the school books, to pay the mortgage, to pay the car payment. I don't think there is any doubt that Americans are the hardest working people in the world. We do not take vacations like the rest of the developed world. We work longer hours. Some of us take more than one job in order to get ahead. It is the story of America. It is a great story. It is filled with optimism. It rests on the bedrock belief that hard work will pay off. Sometimes, through no fault of someone, something terrible happens, something unforeseen happens. A CEO of a major corporation starts looting the corporation to have a $100 million house or a $30 million boat. All of a sudden people are down the drain: Their jobs, their income, their pensions, their retirement security. They are unemployed. Sometimes the worst happens and the waiters and waitresses and janitors and maintenance people who got up every day and for years went to work at the World Trade Center see not just their jobs but their friends' lives and literally the buildings in which they work collapse. I am hoping we will extend benefits once again. We have only done it once. We have the money in the fund to pay for the right thing and the smart thing. We need to do it because so many of our unemployed will run out of benefits completely by the end of December. I am hoping this Congress will act to extend unemployment insurance and disaster unemployment assistance for an additional 13 weeks for all States and 20 weeks for States such as New York that are suffering from high unemployment, much of it directly related to the attacks we also suffered. I don't think we should take another day. We should send a clear message that we care about the working men and women of this country. We care about their families. We are going to try to help them get back on their feet. We will give them the help they deserve because they paid into this fund. We just have to pull the trigger so it goes out to them in their time of need.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. I thank the Senator for his lack of objection, and I hope it transforms into support for extending unemployment insurance.

Mrs. CLINTON. The Senator is correct, we had a jobless recovery in the early 1990s, and a jobless recovery in the early part of this new century. In the early jobless recovery of the early 1990s, the first President Bush extended unemployment benefits three times. Is it the position of the Senator that this job of recovery means it is so different we shouldn't extend the same helping hand the President did in the early nineties to those who lost their jobs then?

Mrs. CLINTON. Will the Senator yield?

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, on September 12, 2001, hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers woke up to a changed world, thousands had lost family, friends and co-workers to the terrorist attacks of September 11 and hundreds of thousands more New Yorkers had lost their jobs. America watched the scenes of New York and felt pride in the firefighters, the police officers, the emergency workers, and the construction workers who had all fled to Ground Zero to help with recovery. The images that our Nation did not see as prominently were the faces of the hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers who were left jobless. There were the workers whose jobs were literally destroyed when the Twin Towers collapsed, the janitors, the doormen, the waiters and waitresses, the secretaries, and messengers. Or, the workers who did not work in lower Manhattan, but who felt the ripple effect of the so- called frozen zone, primarily the hotel workers and small businesses owners. In the months following September 11, these individuals streamed into my office and called on the phone pleading for my assistance. At first, New York was able to offer displaced workers needed assistance through regular unemployment insurance, UI. And, for those workers who did not qualify for regular UI, either because they worked for a small business or they were new employees, they were able to receive Disaster Unemployment Assistance, DUA, provided through the Federal Emergency Management Administration, FEMA. In September 2001, the unemployment rate in New York City was 6.3 percent. And, in the period following September 2001, this rate began to spike up such that we experienced unemployment rates that we had not seen since the recession of the early 1990s. In December 2001, the unemployment rate rose to 7.4 percent, 2.4 percent above the national average for the same period. In March 2002, the unemployment rate climbed to 7.5 percent and in June 2002 it reached 8 percent. New York City lost 150,000 jobs in the aftermath of September 11 and the City is not expected to rebound until 2004. New York City was not alone, New York State saw a climbing unemployment rate for the same period. In September 2001, the unemployment rate in the state was at 5.2 percent; it went up to 5.7 percent in December 2001, to 5.9 percent in March 2002, and to 6.1 percent in June 2002. Once it became clear that the economy was not going to recover quickly and that it was going to take New York State and New York City years to rebuild the economy, I immediately began to fight for the extension of Unemployment Insurance and Disaster Unemployment Assistance so that New Yorkers could receive a small bit of short-term economic security while they searched for jobs. On November 1, 2001, I introduced a bill to extend Disaster Unemployment Assistance for an additional 13-weeks and, at the same time, I urged the Congressional Leadership to include an extension of regular unemployment insurance in the economic stimulus package. After sustained work on these bills, I was pleased in March 2002 to join my colleagues in voting for an economic stimulus package that included a 13-week extension of Unemployment Insurance and, in the same month, I was pleased that we passed the bill to extend Disaster Unemployment Assistance for 13 more weeks. These extensions, however, were short-lived. The economy continued to weaken with corporate scandals and little job growth. In June, I started to hear from thousands of my constituents who were still out of work and concerned that their extended unemployment benefits would soon run out. They were frightened and unsettled and looking to me to help. I saw that this was a serious problem for many New Yorkers so I introduced a bill on July 19, 2002, to provide for another 13-week extension of unemployment insurance. This bill, S. 2714, garnered eight co-sponsors. I also introduced a companion bill, S. 2715, to extend Disaster Unemployment Assistance. Six of my colleagues joined me in co-sponsoring it. I also worked with my colleagues on the House to introduce a companion bill. Rep. Charlie Rangel, from New York City, introduced H.R. 5089, which received 34 co- sponsors, including fourteen members of the New York Congressional delegation. The need to help struggling workers in New York and throughout the Nation, however, was not breaking through. On September 13, 2002, I made my case for the need to extend unemployment insurance through an op-ed in the New York Times, which I would like to submit for the Record today. In this article, I refer to Felix Batista, a father of four who lost his job as a result of September 11 and has not been able to get back on his feet. Felix came to Washington to testify at a HELP Committee hearing on September 12, 2002, and told his story to all the members of the Committee. I was pleased to meet with him and the hundreds of other unemployed New Yorkers who came to town to ask that Congress extend unemployment benefits. On September 15, 2002, I appeared on Meet the Press with Tim Russert and again mentioned the dramatic rise in long-term unemployment and the need to extend benefits and help those who are suffering as a result of the economy. Last week, I delivered a floor statement on this bill to again reinforce the message that I have been trying to get out to all of my colleagues. And yesterday, I worked with Senator Kennedy to organize a press conference to draw attention to this issue. There, I introduced Vera Matty, a former executive assistant at BMG who lost her job last November as a result of the recession. Today, 24 of my colleagues and I are introducing a bill to extend Unemployment Insurance for another 13 weeks and 20 weeks for states like New York that are suffering from high unemployment. In addition, today the Environment and Public Works Committee approved my bill to extend Disaster Unemployment Assistance for another 13 weeks. I am pleased that the EPW Committee is taking action on this bill, S. 2715, and I hope that the Senate will move quickly to approve it. New Yorkers are suffering. We have suffered a double blow as a result of September 11 and the recession. And September 20, 2002 there was an article in the New York Times stating that New York City's poverty rate is growing for the first time in five years. This economy was in a recession on September 10. It was devastated on September 11 and the people who have exhausted their unemployment benefits need our help now. Too many Americans are out of work and having a hard time providing for their families. Too many have lost their jobs and watched their pensions and retirement securities disappear because of the illegal and unethical and inexplicable behavior of corporate executives. And despite their steadfast efforts to find work and their overwhelming desire to get back to work, they remain out of work and struggle to make ends meet. In New York, there are 135,000 New Yorkers who have exhausted their benefits. Across the country, the number of people who have been unemployed for 6 months or longer has almost doubled from 900,000 to 1.5 million in the last year. And that number is expected to increase to 2.2 million by December. And what has Congress done to ease Americans financial burden during these uncertain times? We have extended benefits only once. Contrast that with the recession of the early 90's when Congress extended temporary benefits five times. This year, even in the wake of massive terrorist attacks on our own soil, we have extended benefits only once, and once is not enough. Congress must extend unemployment insurance and disaster unemployment assistance, each for an additional 13 weeks. With more people losing their benefits every day, these extensions have to be passed before Congress adjourns. Extending unemployment insurance is not just the right thing to do; it is also the smart thing. According to a 1999 Department of Labor study, unemployment insurance stimulates the economy. Every dollar spent on unemployment insurance adds $2.5 to the Gross Domestic Product. Unemployment Insurance acts as a stimulus because it puts money into the hands of people who are likely to spend it immediately? They have to buy food. They have to pay rent. They have to pay their car payments. So the money goes right into the economy, and it provides a stimulus. Today, the outlook for job seekers is grim. When President Bush took office back in January of 2001, there was approximately 1 job seeker for every job. In just a little over a year, those numbers have changed to nearly 1 job opening for every 3 applicants. The number of people who cannot find jobs for six months or longer, has grown by almost 90 percent in the past year. In fact, the share of the unemployed today who have been without work for more than 26 weeks exceeds that of the recessions of the early 90s and the early 80s. But only looking at the unemployment rate does not paint a complete picture of the economy. My constituents describe an endless job search--the hopeless feeling that comes from looking for a job for months and months without success. Two years ago, America was on the right track when it came to the economy: 22 million new jobs, budget surpluses, and historic growth. For reasons that escape me, we threw all that good work away. Now we're back into deficits. We're not creating jobs. And we're not taking care of the unemployed. It's time for us to extend benefits just as we did during the recession in the early 90's, and stimulate the economy. People are hurting and they are running out of benefits and they need Congress to act now. We must not adjourn until we pass these needed extensions of unemployment insurance. I ask unanimous consent that the New York Times article of September 20, 2002 be printed in the Record.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, on September 12, 2001, hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers woke up to a changed world, thousands had lost family, friends and co-workers to the terrorist attacks of September 11 and hundreds of thousands more New Yorkers had lost their jobs. America watched the scenes of New York and felt pride in the firefighters, the police officers, the emergency workers, and the construction workers who had all fled to Ground Zero to help with recovery. The images that our Nation did not see as prominently were the faces of the hundreds of thousands of New Yorkers who were left jobless. There were the workers whose jobs were literally destroyed when the Twin Towers collapsed, the janitors, the doormen, the waiters and waitresses, the secretaries, and messengers. Or, the workers who did not work in lower Manhattan, but who felt the ripple effect of the so- called frozen zone, primarily the hotel workers and small businesses owners. In the months following September 11, these individuals streamed into my office and called on the phone pleading for my assistance. At first, New York was able to offer displaced workers needed assistance through regular unemployment insurance, UI. And, for those workers who did not qualify for regular UI, either because they worked for a small business or they were new employees, they were able to receive Disaster Unemployment Assistance, DUA, provided through the Federal Emergency Management Administration, FEMA. In September 2001, the unemployment rate in New York City was 6.3 percent. And, in the period following September 2001, this rate began to spike up such that we experienced unemployment rates that we had not seen since the recession of the early 1990s. In December 2001, the unemployment rate rose to 7.4 percent, 2.4 percent above the national average for the same period. In March 2002, the unemployment rate climbed to 7.5 percent and in June 2002 it reached 8 percent. New York City lost 150,000 jobs in the aftermath of September 11 and the City is not expected to rebound until 2004. New York City was not alone, New York State saw a climbing unemployment rate for the same period. In September 2001, the unemployment rate in the state was at 5.2 percent; it went up to 5.7 percent in December 2001, to 5.9 percent in March 2002, and to 6.1 percent in June 2002. Once it became clear that the economy was not going to recover quickly and that it was going to take New York State and New York City years to rebuild the economy, I immediately began to fight for the extension of Unemployment Insurance and Disaster Unemployment Assistance so that New Yorkers could receive a small bit of short-term economic security while they searched for jobs. On November 1, 2001, I introduced a bill to extend Disaster Unemployment Assistance for an additional 13-weeks and, at the same time, I urged the Congressional Leadership to include an extension of regular unemployment insurance in the economic stimulus package. After sustained work on these bills, I was pleased in March 2002 to join my colleagues in voting for an economic stimulus package that included a 13-week extension of Unemployment Insurance and, in the same month, I was pleased that we passed the bill to extend Disaster Unemployment Assistance for 13 more weeks. These extensions, however, were short-lived. The economy continued to weaken with corporate scandals and little job growth. In June, I started to hear from thousands of my constituents who were still out of work and concerned that their extended unemployment benefits would soon run out. They were frightened and unsettled and looking to me to help. I saw that this was a serious problem for many New Yorkers so I introduced a bill on July 19, 2002, to provide for another 13-week extension of unemployment insurance. This bill, S. 2714, garnered eight co-sponsors. I also introduced a companion bill, S. 2715, to extend Disaster Unemployment Assistance. Six of my colleagues joined me in co-sponsoring it. I also worked with my colleagues on the House to introduce a companion bill. Rep. Charlie Rangel, from New York City, introduced H.R. 5089, which received 34 co- sponsors, including fourteen members of the New York Congressional delegation. The need to help struggling workers in New York and throughout the Nation, however, was not breaking through. On September 13, 2002, I made my case for the need to extend unemployment insurance through an op-ed in the New York Times, which I would like to submit for the Record today. In this article, I refer to Felix Batista, a father of four who lost his job as a result of September 11 and has not been able to get back on his feet. Felix came to Washington to testify at a HELP Committee hearing on September 12, 2002, and told his story to all the members of the Committee. I was pleased to meet with him and the hundreds of other unemployed New Yorkers who came to town to ask that Congress extend unemployment benefits. On September 15, 2002, I appeared on Meet the Press with Tim Russert and again mentioned the dramatic rise in long-term unemployment and the need to extend benefits and help those who are suffering as a result of the economy. Last week, I delivered a floor statement on this bill to again reinforce the message that I have been trying to get out to all of my colleagues. And yesterday, I worked with Senator Kennedy to organize a press conference to draw attention to this issue. There, I introduced Vera Matty, a former executive assistant at BMG who lost her job last November as a result of the recession. Today, 24 of my colleagues and I are introducing a bill to extend Unemployment Insurance for another 13 weeks and 20 weeks for states like New York that are suffering from high unemployment. In addition, today the Environment and Public Works Committee approved my bill to extend Disaster Unemployment Assistance for another 13 weeks. I am pleased that the EPW Committee is taking action on this bill, S. 2715, and I hope that the Senate will move quickly to approve it. New Yorkers are suffering. We have suffered a double blow as a result of September 11 and the recession. And September 20, 2002 there was an article in the New York Times stating that New York City's poverty rate is growing for the first time in five years. This economy was in a recession on September 10. It was devastated on September 11 and the people who have exhausted their unemployment benefits need our help now. Too many Americans are out of work and having a hard time providing for their families. Too many have lost their jobs and watched their pensions and retirement securities disappear because of the illegal and unethical and inexplicable behavior of corporate executives. And despite their steadfast efforts to find work and their overwhelming desire to get back to work, they remain out of work and struggle to make ends meet. In New York, there are 135,000 New Yorkers who have exhausted their benefits. Across the country, the number of people who have been unemployed for 6 months or longer has almost doubled from 900,000 to 1.5 million in the last year. And that number is expected to increase to 2.2 million by December. And what has Congress done to ease Americans financial burden during these uncertain times? We have extended benefits only once. Contrast that with the recession of the early 90's when Congress extended temporary benefits five times. This year, even in the wake of massive terrorist attacks on our own soil, we have extended benefits only once, and once is not enough. Congress must extend unemployment insurance and disaster unemployment assistance, each for an additional 13 weeks. With more people losing their benefits every day, these extensions have to be passed before Congress adjourns. Extending unemployment insurance is not just the right thing to do; it is also the smart thing. According to a 1999 Department of Labor study, unemployment insurance stimulates the economy. Every dollar spent on unemployment insurance adds $2.5 to the Gross Domestic Product. Unemployment Insurance acts as a stimulus because it puts money into the hands of people who are likely to spend it immediately? They have to buy food. They have to pay rent. They have to pay their car payments. So the money goes right into the economy, and it provides a stimulus. Today, the outlook for job seekers is grim. When President Bush took office back in January of 2001, there was approximately 1 job seeker for every job. In just a little over a year, those numbers have changed to nearly 1 job opening for every 3 applicants. The number of people who cannot find jobs for six months or longer, has grown by almost 90 percent in the past year. In fact, the share of the unemployed today who have been without work for more than 26 weeks exceeds that of the recessions of the early 90s and the early 80s. But only looking at the unemployment rate does not paint a complete picture of the economy. My constituents describe an endless job search--the hopeless feeling that comes from looking for a job for months and months without success. Two years ago, America was on the right track when it came to the economy: 22 million new jobs, budget surpluses, and historic growth. For reasons that escape me, we threw all that good work away. Now we're back into deficits. We're not creating jobs. And we're not taking care of the unemployed. It's time for us to extend benefits just as we did during the recession in the early 90's, and stimulate the economy. People are hurting and they are running out of benefits and they need Congress to act now. We must not adjourn until we pass these needed extensions of unemployment insurance. I ask unanimous consent that the New York Times article of September 20, 2002 be printed in the Record.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I am pleased to have joined with Senator Jeffords, as well as Senators Leahy and Schumer, in introducing the ``Daniel Patrick Moynihan Lake Champlain Basin Program Act of 2002.'' I thank Chairman Jeffords, with whom I have the honor and pleasure of serving on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, for introducing this legislation and naming it in tribute to my predecessor, New York Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Senator Jeffords is a great Chairman, a great environmental leader, and a great supporter of this natural and cultural resource that our states share-- the Lake Champlain Basin and the Champlain Valley. I am proud also to be a sponsor of legislation authored by Senator Jeffords to establish the Champlain Valley National Heritage Partnership. The Lake Champlain Basin is a unique and beautiful region, bounded by the Green Mountains of Vermont and the Adirondack Mountains of New York. It is a place of majestic mountain peaks; deep, blue waters; and abundant cultural, historic, and natural resources. The Lake is the sixth largest natural freshwater lake in the United States, and home to a many species of fish, birds and other wildlife. We need to protect and enhance the environmental integrity and the social and economic benefits of the Lake Champlain basin. And that is precisely what we aim to do through this legislation, which will authorize $55 million over the nest 5 years for this purpose. That this legislation and this program are being named after Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan is a most fitting tribute. Senator Moynihan was, and still is, a great advocate of Lake Champlain and the Champlain Valley, whether supporting the rich heritage and history of the area, or protecting the environmental quality of the Lake and Basin. Senator Moynihan appreciates that the environmental quality of the Lake and basin are key to the vitality of the area as a whole, and worked tirelessly during his tenure to protect the health of the basin. Naming the Lake Champlain Basin Program Act and the program itself after Senator Moynihan is a fitting tribute to his efforts to ensure that this natural treasure will survive for generations to come. As we all remember, it was in 1990 that Senator Moynihan joined with Senator Jeffords, as I am joining with him today, in sponsoring the invaluable Lake Champlain Special Designation Act. The act outlined an unprecedented collaboration among broad interest groups to protect the environmentally sensitive Lake Champlain basin, as well as spark recreational activity and economic revitalization in the basin area. Under the act, the Lake Champlain Management Conference was created and charged with developing a comprehensive plan for pollution prevention and water quality restoration. The legislation that we are introducing builds upon the Lake Champlain Special Designation Act of 1990, in which Senator Moynihan played a key role during the 101st Congress. It also builds upon the plan that came out of that 1990 legislation, entitled ``Opportunities for Action.'' The plan was approved by the Lake Champlain Steering Committee earlier this year and is the guiding document for this new legislation, which will provide new and important resources for countries in Vermont and for Clinton, Essex, Franklin, Hamilton, Warren and Washingotn counties in New York State. This is important environmental legislation, but it is also important economic development legislation for key areas of upstate New York. Therefore, I am proud to sponsor this legislation with Chairman Jeffords, and to name this legislation after my illustrious and esteemed predecessor, Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today to honor my colleague from South Carolina and to wish him a happy 100th birthday. For the better part of the 20th century, Strom Thurmond devoted his life to public service service to the people of South Carolina, service to his country in World War II, and service in the Senate. He began his career as a teacher and coach. He became superintendent of education in Edgefield County. He landed at Normandy on D-day with the 82nd Airborne Division, and returned home to become Governor of South Carolina. In 1954, Strom Thurmond became the first Member of the Senate to win election as a write-in candidate. He has spent most of his life giving back to the people and the places that have given him so much in life. As a U.S. Senator, no one has had a more distinguished career than Strom Thurmond. For more than 48 years, he has been a champion for our veterans. Time and time again, he has fought to strengthen their education and rehabilitation benefits, and to provide them with the best health care and housing. In the last year, he continued to do more for our military. He filed legislation to ensure that disabled veterans have access to service dogs so that they can lead a more independent life. He has reached across the aisle to end the limit on Junior ROTC programs with our colleague Senator Graham from Florida. He secured education benefits for our brave men and women serving in Afghanistan in Operation Enduring Freedom. Each effort has brought more honor and dignity to the courageous men and women who give so much of themselves so that we can live in freedom. Just as he began his career as a teacher in 1923, I know that he was so very proud to support last year's ``No Child Left Behind Act.'' He understands that the best place to open a child's mind and heart to the opportunities that surround him or her is through education. I want to take this moment to thank Senator Thurmond for supporting New York during this difficult year. In the wake of massive terrorist attacks, Senator Thurmond stood by the people of New York and the people of New York are grateful for his assistance as the city rebuilds. Today, it gives me great pleasure to honor Strom Thurmond and to express my sincere gratitude and appreciation for all that he has done to improve the lives of the people he represents in South Carolina and every American. We are honored for his years of service and wish him a very happy birthday.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Ten minutes, Mr. President.

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent the order for the quorum call be rescinded and the time for morning business be extended.

Mrs. CLINTON. That the time for morning business be extended.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I rise today to talk about an issue of great concern to my constituents and, indeed, to our entire country-- the state of our Nation's economy. We know our economy was already in recession on September 10 and it was devastated on September 11 by the horrific attacks we suffered, and it is stalled now. Too many Americans are out of work. Too many have seen their pension and retirement security disappear because of the illegal, unethical, and simply inexplicable behavior of corporate executives. Too many people who lost their jobs as a result of September 11 have not yet been able to find work. Let me just mention one of the hundreds of thousands--millions of such people: A New Yorker by the name of Felix Batista. Mr. Batista had worked for years, 25 years I believe, as a member of the wait staff at the restaurant known as Windows On The World at the top of the World Trade Center. He has four children. He was on vacation on September 11 when 73 of his coworkers were murdered. He lost not only friends and colleagues, he lost his job, and he has been unemployed since that terrible day. He is a man who had a wonderful employment record who now spends his days looking for work. He exhausted his unemployment benefits almost 3 months ago. How is he going to support his four children? He is a victim of the terrorist attacks on New York and America, and he is not alone. Like so many other New Yorkers and Americans, despite their steadfast efforts to find work, and their overwhelming desire to get back to work, they remain out of work, struggling to make ends meet. In New York, there are 135,000 New Yorkers who have exhausted their benefits. Across the country, the number of people who have been unemployed for 6 months or longer has almost doubled, from 800,000 to 1.5 million in the last year, and that number is expected to increase to more than 2 million by December. What have we, the elected representatives of all the people, including the people who are unemployed, the people such as Felix who have lost their jobs--what have we done to respond? We have extended unemployment benefits once--but only once. Contrast that with the recession of the early 1990s when Congress extended temporary benefits five times. But this year, even in the wake of the combination of a slowdown in the economy and terrorism, we have only extended benefits once. Once is not enough. Congress must act to extend unemployment insurance and disaster unemployment assistance for an additional 13 weeks each. With more people losing their benefits every day and being put into the terrible position in which Mr. Batista finds himself, these extensions should be passed before Congress adjourns. The Wall Street Journal says our economy is in the midst of a ``jobless recovery.'' From what I hear, that phrase is only half true. Across New York State, 553,000 New Yorkers are out of work, and the same story is true of company layoffs and plant closings in Niagara Falls, Rochester, and so many parts of New York. Unfortunately, this is a story that is compounded by the corporate irresponsibility and illegality. They have added even more uncertainty to our economic condition. We not only are seeing plants closing and people losing their jobs because there is no business and there are no orders, but we are also in Rochester seeing 500 people out of work after Global Crossing filed for bankruptcy. If there is any doubt that the economic situation is not producing jobs for people, take a look at this chart. It shows the number of jobs that are available compared with the number of people who are looking for work. As you can clearly see, during most of 2002, jobseekers far outnumbered job availability. In fact, in June, there were almost three jobseekers for every available job. When President Bush took office in January 2001, there were approximately 1.5 jobseekers for every job. In just a short year and a half, we have gone from one job opening for every one and a half unemployed person to one job opening for nearly three unemployed persons. But only looking at the statistics and the unemployment rate doesn't paint a complete picture. The constituents that I talk to in New York describe an endless, frustrating job search--that hopeless feeling that comes when you go out every day and read the want ads and follow up every single lead. These are people who are young and old and middle- aged. They are male, they are female, they are skilled and unskilled; they are white, they are black, and they are Latino. They are every kind of American. They want to work. But until this economy turns around, they need additional help. The so-called jobless recovery has hit long-term unemployed workers particularly hard. The number of people who cannot find jobs for 6 months or longer has grown by almost 90 percent in the past year. In fact, the share of the unemployed today who have been without work for more than 26 weeks exceeds that of the recession of the early 1990s and the early 1980s. According to a recent study, ``an increase in the long term unemployment of workers with significant workforce experience'' is particularly striking. But why should we be surprised? We have companies such as Enron, Global Crossing, WorldCom, and Tyco that are laying off, going into bankruptcy, and rendering unemployed highly skilled workers--people who got their education, went to college, and improved their skills. They were part of the new economy, and, all of a sudden, they find themselves on the unemployment lines. What this means for real Americans is that people who are trying hard, who have played by the rules, who have been responsible, and, through no fault of their own--a corporate executive who commits illegalities, or a terrorist who destroys a building--are now unemployed. The number of workers who have exhausted their benefits has doubled compared to 2 years ago. The number of workers who have exhausted their State benefits is 2.3 million, more than we had 10 years ago during the recession of the early 1990s. As you can see from this chart, the number of workers exhausting their unemployment benefits without a job has risen steadily since last spring. If you are wondering what this means for individual States, I have information about every State in our country. This is not just a New York problem. This is a national problem. We may have the highest number of people who have exhausted their benefits, but, of course, you would expect that. We lost tens of thousands of jobs because of the attack and the collapse of the buildings. Because it was a crime scene, they couldn't reopen and get back into business. Our unemployment rate in New York City is 8 percent--higher than the national average--unfortunately reflecting a condition that affects all Americans. Back in the recession of the early 1990s when the first President Bush was in office, people who were unfortunate enough to lose their jobs got a compassionate response from the White House. The first President Bush said: You know, I am going to be there to help you. And, working with the Congress, that is exactly what happened. We extended unemployment benefits five times. Are the people today less deserving? Are the workers who lost their jobs because of corporate illegality, economic slowdown, or terrorist attacks somehow not worthy of our help? I don't think so. I certainly hope not. As you can see from this chart, which has a lot of writing on it, basically the bottom line is that during the early stage of the recession in the 1990s, 35 States received 26 weeks of benefits, and 16 received 33 weeks. And it is so clear that today during our recession we only have 39 States getting 13 weeks of benefits and 12 receiving 26.

Mrs. CLINTON. I ask unanimous consent for another 5 minutes.

Mrs. CLINTON. This is not only a comparison--it should cause us to wonder what our national policy is--it is also a reflection of how we have no economic policy in America right now. We don't have an emphasis on creating jobs, prosperity, and economic opportunity. Our leader, Senator Daschle, came to the floor earlier this week and, in a series of charts, made clear that we are not attending to America's business. We all know we have foreign policy challenges. I, for one, have supported our men and women in uniform and supported our need for homeland security. I will continue to do so because our threats are real, and we have to deal with them. But we are a great nation. We can do more than one thing at a time. We should be paying attention to our economy. We should be taking care of our unemployed workers. It is the right thing to do. I hope we will do it because it takes care of people. Look at this next chart. Every dollar we spend on unemployment insurance adds $2.50 to our gross domestic product. It is a good investment. Why? Because when the unemployed get those benefits--when Mr. Batista and others like him finally get some help--what do they do? They go out and spend it. They have no other means. They have to buy food, they have to pay the rent, and they have to make a car payment. The money goes right into the economy, and it provides stimulus. In contrast, President Bush's solution is to stimulate the economy for the wealthiest--keep giving them big tax cuts and hope that it trickles down to people such as Mr. Batista. That didn't work in the 1980s, it didn't work in the 1990s, and it will not work in the 21st century, either. I believe the President is using the wrong approach. Our economy needs to help people. It needs to stimulate jobs. And we owe it to the unemployed such as Mr. Batista to act now. Finally, obviously, I believe our economic policy during the 1990s worked for all Americans--the rich, middle income, and poor. It provided more than 22 million new jobs. We were on the right track in America when it came to the economy. For reasons that escape me, we threw all of that good work away, and now we are back into the deficits. We are not taking care of the unemployed. We are not creating jobs. And I don't think we have any plan to do so. I earnestly request that our colleagues here take leadership and support our unemployed people. Do what was done in the 1990s, provide these benefits, stimulate the economy, and let us get back on the right track for America's future. Thank you, Mr. President.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, I express my appreciation, and I know the appreciation of many of our colleagues, for the Chair's steadfast defense of the Constitution and for his reminder to constant all of us, that the Senate, being the premier deliberative body in the world and, as he often says, one of two such great deliberative Senates ever to be seen by history, has an important role to play in ensuring that the decisions that are made today will stand the test of time and will be made in concert with our constitutional framework and our obligations as Senators.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Mr. President, in the recent colloquy and discussion that the Senator from West Virginia, our current Chair, had with the Senator from Florida, many important issues were raised about homeland security and how best to pursue the defense of our homeland. I don't think anyone argues we now face three great challenges in our Nation. First, we have a national security challenge. Our men and women in uniform are addressing that challenge even as we speak--all over the world from Afghanistan to the Persian Gulf to the border of North and South Korea, and many other places as well. All of us support our military and have voted to provide the largest appropriations ever in our history to give our men and women who put themselves in harm's way all of the resources, technology and compensations that our great military deserves. We have a new challenge; that is, the challenge of homeland security. Certainly, many of us have not had to think of this issue as we are now. On September 11 of last year when we were so grievously attacked, it became clear that we had to begin to apply the techniques of security much closer to home that we have used to defend America's interests abroad for so many generations. We have to take a very hard look at our vulnerabilities, our infrastructure, our borders, and our public health capacity to deal with biological or chemical warfare. And it requires every one of us--not just those in elective office but every citizen-- to become more vigilant and to understand that we are truly facing some serious threats. At the same time, though, there is no reason for us not to debate the best way to defend ourselves. In every generation of America, we have had great debates about how to fight wars and how to structure our national security. Now we are having a debate about how to deal with the new demands of homeland security. I applaud the Chair for his absolutely rock-solid commitment, his totally uncynical and heartfelt commitment to make sure we do this right. It is a huge undertaking. Are we being asked to merge departments just so somebody can say we did something or are we going to do it right? It is the right of patriotism to ask hard questions. That is who we are as Americans. We are not people who are blindly led. We are not sheep who follow any leader's oratory. We are an independent, free-spirited, liberty-loving people. When we have debates, either on the floor of the Senate or in the media, about the right way to proceed, those of us who engage in that debate do so out of a deep wellspring of love and devotion to our country. No one exemplifies that more than the senior Senator from West Virginia. In addition to our national security challenges and our homeland security challenges, we have all of the challenges we had on September 10 of last year. We have an economy that is stalled. We have a so- called ``jobless recovery.'' We can't seem to come together on important issues. I am delighted to see my colleague from Arizona in the Chamber. Senator McCain has been a leader and advocate for prescription drugs and for patients getting the right to have the treatment their doctors prescribe--not an HMO or some bureaucrat somewhere. There are many important issues we should be debating that also will determine the quality of our life and the opportunities for our children. I hope, as people tune in to see what happens on the Senate floor-- when they see the Senator from West Virginia or the Senator from Arizona taking to the floor to talk about an issue--that they recognize that we believe we are acting in the great tradition, not only of the American Senate and Congress, but of America's citizenry, because there isn't any greater title than one can have than citizen of the United States of America. I, as one Senator, appreciate the Senator's vigilance, his constant reminder to the rest of us that we are here because of our Founders, their genius, and the Constitution which they bequeathed to us. The debates we are holding on this important issue of national homeland security and other pressing domestic issues are in the tradition of those Founders. I thank the Chair. I yield the floor.

Mrs. CLINTON

Mrs. CLINTON. Will the Senator from West Virginia yield for a question?

Mrs. CLINTON. I thank the Senator for his understanding and compassion and his leadership. As I yield back the floor because of a courtesy that was extended to me by the Senator to be part of this colloquy, I point out that dealing with homeland security is a very heavy responsibility.

Mrs. CLINTON. I thank the Senator from West Virginia because these are matters of grave importance to my constituents. Beyond that, they are of great importance to all Americans. I very much appreciate the Senator's attention because he has studied these issues, he understands how we have to demonstrate clearly our resolve and our preparedness. I ask the Senator from West Virginia, as he has moved forward with his work on behalf of the Appropriations Committee, and very importantly the work of homeland security, if he has determined there is a need for additional money to be sent to our frontline responders, our frontline soldiers, our firefighters, our police officers, our emergency workers, so they may do the important job of protecting us as we expect them to do?

Mrs. CLINTON. I thank the Senator because he has shouldered this heavy responsibility. We have a process that we have had for many decades about the money we appropriate for our military, and the needs are discussed within the civilian and military leadership of the Department of Defense. It comes to the Congress, and there is a process. But we are faced with new challenges. It is my observation and opinion that the Senator from West Virginia and his very worthy colleague, the Senator from Alaska, have taken it upon their shoulders to create a process where none was before so we could begin to address these very serious issues--not wait for a Department to get set up, not wait for it to get organized or get its first budget. But right now, in the face of the ongoing threats, of having an orange-level threat just a few days ago, it brings home how important the work is the Senator is doing. I express my gratitude to him. I thank him for the courtesy of yielding to me for these questions. Exhibit 1 U.S. Senate, Washington, DC, September 3, 2002. Hon. Robert C. Byrd, Chairman, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: I want to thank and commend you again for all your hard and important work to help New York recover from the terrorist attacks and on the issue of homeland security more generally. We are all greatly indebted to you. As the FY 2003 Interior Appropriations bill comes to the floor tomorrow, I understand there may be some effort to offer an amendment to provide the emergency funding requested by the Administration to battle the wildfires in the western part of the country. As a part of this effort, I thought I would raise a couple relevant items of particular importance to me that were left shortchanged by President Bush's decision to not make the emergency designation on the $5.1 billion you included in the FY 2002 Supplemental Appropriations bill. The following emergency items are especially relevant to address the urgent needs of firefighters and emergency responders in New York and across the country: $90 million to HHS/CDC for clinical examinations and the monitoring of long-term health consequences for police, fire and other first responders at Ground Zero. Each day there are new reports of emergency rescue personnel who worked at the World Trade Center site suffering from respiratory and other ailments. The $12 million appropriated last year provided sufficient funding to begin baseline screenings for approximately one-third of the workers at the site. This additional funding is necessary to continue the screenings for the remaining first responders, as well to monitor their health for the coming years. $150 million in firefighting grants as authorized under the FIRE Act. As you know, fire departments from New York and across the country have filed applications that exceed $3 billion in need for $360 million in available resources. These resources will help our fire departments meet the demands and safety needs of our communities. $100 million in grants to make fire and police equipment interoperable--these resources are split evenly between FEMA and DOJ's Office of Domestic Preparedness. One of the primary causes of the death of most firefighters on September 11th was their inability to communicate with each other and with the Police Department. These resources are critically needed to protect the health and lives of our bravest domestic soldiers. As you can see, these are all emergency items and ones that you had the foresight to include in the Supplemental Appropriations bill Congress passed earlier this year. I very much appreciate all your hard work and support in making sure these important items get the funding they so critically need. Sincerely yours, Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Mrs. CLINTON. Is it further correct that among those items the Senator has reviewed, studied, and analyzed for the validity of their claims and the importance of their priorities, was a recognition we had some additional work to do because of the terrible attacks of September 11? And as a Senator from New York, I want to pause for a moment and acknowledge with great gratitude the leadership of the Senator from West Virginia in this body and the response of this Nation. We had some unfinished business that we learned about because of those horrific attacks on September 11, which the Senator from West Virginia is attempting to address.